RFR: 8153666: Optimize Formatter.formatMessage

[Daniel Fuchs]

Good point Roger!

I was already wondering whether looking for {[0-9] instead
of {[0-3] deserved a small mention in the release note.

The fact that the spec needs updating confirms that this
little behavior change probably needs to be mentioned.

I will do the paperwork for the spec change.
I don't think we need any switch to revert to the old behaviour,
right?

best regards,

-- daniel


On 08/06/16 15:14, Roger Riggs wrote:
> Hi Daniel,
>
> Looks ok, but...
>
> Formatter.java:
>
> - line 104: the javadoc says it looks for '{0'  but the implementation
> looks for '{'[0..9]
>   It looks like the spec is out of sync with the implementation (the
> implementation is more lenient)
>   and has been for a while.
>
>   According to the spec/javadoc; no formatting should occur unless it
> contains "{0"
>
> Roger
>
>
> On 6/8/2016 9:46 AM, Daniel Fuchs wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> Please find below a patch for a small optimization
>> in Formatter.formatMessage.
>> This patch also removed the synchronized keyword which
>> was there for historical reasons - but which has
>> become needless.
>>
>> More background available at:
>> https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8153666
>> (thanks Martin!)
>> and
>> http://stackoverflow.com/questions/36433146/why-is-the-formatmessage-method-in-java-util-logging-formatter-synchronized
>>
>> (thanks Jason!)
>>
>> bug:
>> 8153666: Optimize Formatter.formatMessage
>> https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8153666
>>
>>
>> patch:
>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~dfuchs/webrev_8153666/webrev.00
>>
>> best regards, and thanks to all who provided suggestions and
>> archeological background!
>>
>> -- daniel
>